One thing that does surprise me, pleasantly, is that Monty doesn't see a "need for a licensing remedy" should IBM (or Fujitsu or any of the major Linux distribution vendors) acquire MySQL. Many have questioned Monty's motives for blocking the MySQL acquisition. Monty's company competes with MySQL but unlike MySQL, Monty's company cannot provide a commercial license to business partners or enterprises. That's why the linking exception or having to relicense MySQL under the Apache Software License 2.0 is seen as a boon to third-party providers of MySQL products and services. Had Monty replied that he would like any potential acquirer of MySQL to accept a licensing remedy, one could draw a connection to his current business interests.
Readers can make up their own minds as to Monty's or Oracle's motives. But like most things in life, the story isn't cut and dry. I personally believe there is more for Oracle to gain by nurturing MySQL than not, but Larry Ellison won't return my calls.
Follow me on Twitter: SavioRodrigues.
p.s.: I should state: "The postings on this site are my own and don't necessarily represent IBM's positions, strategies, or opinions."
This story, "Why MySQL's creator thinks IBM could acquire the database," was originally published at InfoWorld.com. Follow the latest developments in open source at InfoWorld.com.